The Torch

"My toast would be, may our country always be successful, but whether successful or otherwise, always right."

Wednesday, February 23, 2005

Draft Condi Movement Alive! In... New York?

"Local6 News, NY - The Siena College survey of more than 1,100 voters across the country shows 62 percent think the United states is ready for a woman in the White House in 2008.

Asked specifically about four potential candidates, 53 percent said New York'sDemocratic Sen. Hillary Clinton should run for president in three years, while 42 percent said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice -- a top Cabinet member in the Republican Bush administration -- should run.

Also, 33 percent said North Carolina's Republican Sen. Elizabeth Dole should seek the presidency, while 13 percent said that of California's Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer.

The poll claims a margin of error of 2.9 percentage points."

Alright, so it would look like the liberal MSM in N' Yawk has put together a balanced scientific in which theHillareich was the dominant leader, correct? Well, after reading the article, I noticed that there was a poll on the top right side. It read, "Of the following, which woman would be most likely to get your vote for president of the United States?" The options were Secretary Rice, Senator Dole, the Hillareich, and a certain California feminazi whose "integrity was impugned" by Condi. The results were quite telling:

"U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: 11,817 votes -- 56%N.C Senator Elizabeth Dole: 2,358 -- 11%N.Y. Senator Hillary Clinton: 6,179 -- 29%Calif. Senator Barabara Boxer: 763 -- 4%"Of course Condoleezza Rice is popular in liberal New York, she's popular everywhere. She can defeat everyone, especially Hillary, because of, not only her intelligence, articulation, credentials, and strong conservative views, but the fact that she cuts into the three major Democratic demographics: African-Americans, single women, and Hispanics. Being from Alabama, she will easily pull in the Southern vote regardless of misleading myths alluding to a "weakness" in her electability due to her race. All she needs to do is sign on some strong Southern Republican to lock the already Red states.

Not only is she an electoral dream, but when we factor in the intentionally misleading poll's loser-factor, we see better results yet. By taking away Senator Dole's minority 33% and giving it to Condi, we see that, within conservatives, 75% favor Dr. Rice as a female presidential candidate. Likewise, when disregarding Barbara Boxer's 13% and giving it to Hillary, she has a total of 66% of the Democratic Party backing her. When we factor the margin of error in Hillary's favor we see support for Condi at a solid 72.1%; for Hillary, 68.9%. Republican Party: sexist Old Boys' Club? Please.

This is a great vindication of our Draft Condi movement. Condoleezza Rice is more popular than Hillary Clinton in nationwide polls, sure, but by 27% in a poll of Hillary's own state? Beautiful. Get ready for a Madame Rice Presidency: inevitable, sweet, and less than 45 months away.

Sunday, February 20, 2005

Taiwan To Secede?

Newsmax reports: "After threatening Taiwan with its anti-secession law, Beijing appears determined to send the Taiwanese people to the polls. According to a new report by Asia Pulse, China is strongly encouraging Taiwan to decide through referendum whether to secede from the Mainland, the Asia Monitor reports."

This is great news - if it goes through, that is. We could see another victory for democracy over tyranny. And it is also significant in that China, being the growing threat it is, can come out on the bottom of this deal. If Washington sticks to a solid anticommunist campaign and publicly praises Taiwan's sovereignty as a victory against Stalinist China, we can preemptively confront the Chinese about their despotic regime. We may as well begin confrontation now, as China will eventually materialize into a very significant superpower, and we cannot afford another duel.

It is our duty as the world's unchallenged superpower to remain superior to all nations, especially China. The principles of our founding are infinitely more just and more true than all of those nations that conflict with them, and China is virtually a polar opposite of all that we stand for. What we need to do in order to maintain benevolent global hegemony is throw the first punch, be it through tough diplomacy and direct confrontation or military action. We must pray thatthe matter does not wind down to the latter. One thing's for sure, Taiwan gaining independence is a major step for liberty in China - strategically, of course.

Newsmax continues to report: "Mainland Affairs Council Chairman Joseph Wu clearly stated that Taiwan would have no choice but to decide if it would prefer to perpetuate the "one country, two systems," or to revert to the "one China" policy espoused by the People's Republic of China. Taiwanese pro-independence activists are calling the anti-secession law a ploy to frighten Taiwan into giving up moves toward independence.

China's military modernization has begun to alter the balance of power across the Taiwan Strait and poses a growing threat to the United States, according to the U.S. government's top spy.

As part of the intelligence community's annual series of briefings to Congress on worldwide threats to the United States, CIA Director Porter Goss told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that over the past year, China continued to build up its deployments of ballistic missiles opposite Taiwan and unveiled several new submarines for its naval forces.

"China continues to develop more robust, survivable nuclear-armed missiles as well as conventional capabilities for use in a regional conflict," Goss also disclosed.

Goss' assessments were amplified by Adm. Lowell Jacoby, director of the Pentagon's dedicated intelligence arm, the Defense Intelligence Agency. In separate Senate testimony, Jacoby told lawmakers that Chinese strategists are continuing to study U.S. strategy in the War on Terror.

"China remains keenly interested in Coalition military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq," Jacoby said, "and is using lessons from those operations to guide PLA modernization and strategy."

Okay, so that's not-so-great news.

To ignore all of the tell-tale signs would be naive; to dismiss my anti-Chinese ramblings as partisan paranoia or neoconservative belligerence would be foolish. The United States of America cannot afford to take a chance with the Red Chinese government. In order to maintain the safety of Americans and to protect those truths we hold most sacred and the integrity of our great nation, we must take action.

We may be able to get the job done peacefully, and I hope that we can. A war with China would be very costly and would end the lives of many in our Armed Forces. This is not the first time that Washington officials or I have expressed concern about this issue. We need to act with urgency and we need to treat this impending threat as a primary concern, or at least to an extent greater than we have recently and throughout the 90s. My advice to the Bush Administration: Lock and load.

Random Thought

"Freedom in Iraq is one of the things you can thank Rice's foreign policy influence for. As the strong neoconservative she seems to be, there's one thing I know that she would do: Energize the Republican party. She is a great debator, enough of one to pull away demons from Satan's grasp. She's not just another minion, either."

Sure, it's kind of choppy, but the underlying message is what counts... heh heh heh.

And So The Thievery Persists

Many of you may still be unaware of the thievery, the disgusting, unforgiveable thievery, of my blog name by FIRE. I had "The Torch" as my blog name for an entire week before they did.

"But, Charlie, FIRE is a wonderful and respectable organization that does many great things for conservative students on campus who face double standards and censorship!"

Hogwash, I say. Sure, they may do great things for conservative students, I'll concede that, but that does not excuse them from the most heinous of crimes: blog name theft. The uncreative, dishonest, blog-name-stealing FIRE and their "Torch" were just too lazy to even check google to see if my blog's name didn't even exist yet? Fools, I call them. They haven't responded yet, but hey, that's not my fault. They are simply digging themselves into a hole - a hole of lies!

Condi To Replace Cheney?

We can only hope. Here's an interesting article that came to my attention just a little while ago:

"WorldNetDaily - Vice President Dick Cheney likely will step down next year due to health reasons and be replaced by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, according to a report by geopolitical expert Jack Wheeler."

Some may say that all of this speculative punditry is premature, but I laugh at them. Condoleezza Rice could very well be the first female and Afircan-American in the White House (Well, you know what I mean), and it could simply be because of us. If we start a "draft Condi" movement we could have her running for the presidency within two years time. And with Dick Cheney's health issues - God Bless him - constantly taunting his reliability through the War on Terror, we can only assume that he will step down soon enough.

It is no secret that Vice President Cheney is one of the best politicians of this century, if not the best VP in American history, and he has nothing to prove. Secretary Rice could become VP next year and it would be virtually impossible for the DNC to stop her; Hillary would already have been all but destroyed, to say the least.

Quote of the Day

"Reaching into one's own pocket to assist his fellow man is noble and worthy of praise. Reaching into another person's pocket to assist one's fellow man is despicable and worthy of condemnation."-- Walter Williams

Saturday, February 19, 2005

Moore Misleads, Make Millions, What a Commie

"Sept. 11th was a terrible disaster for America - and it hit America hard financially.But one person who has benefited financially is filmmaker Michael Moore, who parlayed the disaster into a whopping $50 million for himself."

Ah, the "likeable working man", the "man of the people", Michael Moore, everyone's favorite moonbat socialist, has raked in 50 million dollars. That's awfully bourgeois of him. What's funny about this is not that this deliberately misleading liberal celebrity who touts his mockumentary's success has more money to roll around in, but that he has consistently told the world that he "hasn't seen a dime" of profit from Fahrenheit 9/11. Lies. I know - I know - what did I expect, right? Well, I expected this much - yes - but that's not the point. The point is that we have finally caught the globular mass in his blatant lies. It shouldn't make much of a difference either way, but it is always nice to expose a portion of the truth to the public.

What else has Monsieur Moore said, though? Well, besides claiming the opposite of what we now know is true (his huge loads of cash), he has claimed that he has never made much money anyway. This is the same man who lives in a $4 million penthouse in New York. I mean, after that and all of the lies packed in both Farenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine we can conclude thus: Michael Moore is a dishonest man who is not to be trusted.

Let's see what others have said about him - working colleagues, past bosses, and the like:

A former manager, Douglas Urbanski, tells VF that Moore was the "only client I ever fired."

Bush Sticks It To Whiners

"WASHINGTON - As President Bush signed legislation Friday aimed at discouraging multimillion-dollar class-action lawsuits, he made clear he had his sights set on much broader restraints."

This shouldn't come as a surprise to any of you, especially since it happened yesterday, haha. Anyway, this is a great victory for doctors and patients alike. Now doctors can perform to the best of their ability without extreme, exaggerated caution; now patients will not have their net cost of healthcare driven to the price of a new Ferrari.

This is a great step in the right direction, literally. President Bush's spending of his political capital is already seeing overwhelmingly positive effects, and I think all of your wallets will reflect that. Ambulance chasers can take a hike; doctors can do their jobs; whiny liberals can't take advantage of the judicial system; insurance companies won't drive up their prices; and everyone will benefit in the end except for those who we don't want to benefit. I wonder what John Edwards thinks of this?

Friday, February 18, 2005

IMAO On the Decline... Sadly

If any of you are readers of IMAO ,then you are undoubtedly familiar with Frank J., arguably the funniest blogger in all of the blogosphere. Unfortunately, he has now changed IMAO from pure Frank J. to a group blog. Most are deeply saddened.

It's not that the other bloggers aren't funny - no, they are very funny - but they are just not for IMAO. Frank J. is a comedic genius and his blog posts force me to close my door so that people don't think I'm insane from laughter. Now he has diluted his humor by changing the fundamental make-up of all that is IMAO.

It's just wrong, really. It's like a victory for Glenn Reynolds - a lying, puppy-blending, Satan-worshipping hobo-murderer - and for monkeys and ninjas. If you have a heart, I call on you to beg Frank J. to make the group blog stop dead. NO MORE GROUP IMAO!

China Needs to Be Put in Her Place

Pacific Rim Bureau (CNSNews.com) - Describing U.S. policy on China and Taiwan as "intellectually dishonest and antiquated," a Republican lawmaker has introduced a bill in the House of Representatives calling on the administration to restore diplomatic ties with Taiwan.

Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado said there was no good reason why the U.S. could not have the same type of relationship with Taiwan's democratically elected government as it has with "the autocratic regime in Beijing."

America's need to have strong diplomatic ties with Taiwan is long overdue. Not only would it be strategic economically, but in spite of China's vast human rights violations and their steadily improving status in both the global market and "community", it only makes sense that we recognize a fact they deny, the Communists.

Taiwan is a perfect example of what happens when oppressed people are given freedom. This is a nation that has, over the course of a few decades, become an economic powerhouse and a fully functional and civilized democratic society. In 2000, the Republic of China (not the "People's Republic", mind you) even broke a fifty year tradition of Nationalist rule through free elections - something uncommon in the Southeast Asia. It would be a symbolic gesture as well as good political sense to treat the free nation of Taiwan with as much if not more respect than the despotic regime of China. Increased relations with Taipei would pressure the Chinese to reform, in a sense, or at least it would unnerve Beijing enough to provoke a legitimate reaction. Not only are our relations with Taiwan not as good as they should be, but anything that can belittle China and reinforce our status as the world's unchallenged superpower is a general positive.

The truth is that the "One China" policy that has worked so well for past presidents has done anything but that: work. It has long been past time for us to abandon this childish denial of Taiwan's status as a sovereign nation capable of functional governance. They have performed much better than Red China has proportionally and it is time for the US to take a stand and remember the Reagan Doctrine on anticommunism and the triumphs thereof. Communism should be challenged whenever possible, and when we start denying a victory for freedom over the tyrannical practices of Stalinist China we should review our priorities, both politically and morally.

A Night On the Town: Au Naturel

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The diners arrived at a nice Manhattan restaurant on a cold February night and stripped off coats, hats, gloves and scarves. They didn't stop there.

Skirts, shirts, pants, underwear and stockings all ended up stashed in plastic bags by the bar as the patrons got naked for the monthly "Clothing Optional Dinner."

"It's exciting to be in a restaurant nude," said George Keyes, 65, a retired junior high school English teacher.

Nude yes, but not unadorned.

Keyes, a lifelong nudist, wore a necklace, earrings and a black leather "genital bracelet" with red studs. And white sneakers.

The dinner was started by a group of New York nudists who wanted something a bit more elegant than the wilderness getaways and beach resorts they generally frequent.

Unfortunately, this is something you see on a slow news day. This is definitely not something that should be condoned; instead, it is deemed an "alternative lifestyle". I respect a private restaurants right to sponsor the event, but nudists should stay behind fences in the woods. Maybe the liberals are celebrating the new head of the DNC? This sort of hedonism should be shunned more often, but often the sheer ridiculousness of these occurences are seen through blind eyes.

Thursday, February 17, 2005

Justice is Blind

As sorry as society would like me to feel for the terrorist detained at Abu Ghraib who died from a "Palestinian hanging", I am yet to shed a single tear. It is not compassionate to weep for evil men who wish to murder innocent women and children and would willingly lay down their own lives to do so. I see no virtue in condemning soldiers who, although they did get very carried away and were a tad out of line, were tough in interrogation on a man possibly withholding information valuable to the mission and the lives of the brave men who sacrifice themselves for its execution.

But that's not the crux of the matter. The importance of this controversy lies within a more widespread phenomenon: Nobody understands the concept of war. Of course, when the lives of many Americans and civilians abroad are at stake, we only hear the public outcry against "human rights violations" and the like; however, inasmuch as we are currently waging war against a ruthless enemy, we as a people must accept the fact that we can not afford to maintain all of their dignity. It is a cold and simple fact that in war one must abandon certain compassionate sentiments in order to complete the mission, which remains primary throughout the endeavor.

But instead of a mutual understanding of the implications of warfare and the necessary acts thereof, we get liberalsense; we get this:

"...while in a position condemned by human rights groups as torture..."

And that was a notable factoid? It was even in the opening paragraph. The problem with this widespread epidemic of utopian pacifism is its complete denial of reality. For instance, Bill O'Reilly seems to be awfully fond of Gitmo, so he constantly asks the toughest of questions to DNC officials and non-profit human rights organizations representatives, such as: "If you knew that something like September 11th could happen and you were in charge of interrogating a terrorist who could possibly know information about the potential attack, wouldn't you rough him up a little bit?" or, "If a loved one of yours could die from a terrorist, wouldn't you push him around so that maybe he would tell you something remotely important enough to aid in saving your loved one?" The questions turn on the spin from those opposed to the correct answer, of course, and so the point remains: Is it wrong to maim or possibly kill someone who may contain information regarding the lives of many more innocents?

No, it is not. If "roughing up" evil men in order to save civilians is morally wrong, then I would have to ask those who would agree with such an assertion if knowingly allowing one evil man to live while allowing the deaths of many more civilians is a righteous deed. I would have to ask them to look me in the eyes and say that letting the many good die for the wicked few is virtuous. But are suh simple thoughts even pursued? Of course not, instead we already have the speculation of the President's involvement, and we have more of this, too:

"After we found out he was dead, they were nervous," Spc. Dennis E. Stevanus said of the CIA interrogator and translator. "They didn't know what the hell to do."

Of course they're afraid of the MSM and the public outcry -- they don't understand. I strongly urge all of those who fail to see the wisdom in allowing alternative methods of retrieving information to change their minds for the sake of the greater good. It's not that I support torture, I don't, but I will not condemn the men and the acts they committed in serving me and protecting my freedom for the sake of pseudo-morality and the "global community". It's just not right.

Crazy Canadians

"Singer Alanis Morissette wore a 'nude suit' on stage at Canada's equivalent of the Grammys to complain about censorship in the US."

Oh, they got us all right. While we stand up for Judeo-Christian philosophy and respect the innocence of young children, they champion bad parenting up North. Of course, Alanis Morrissette wasn't actually nude, was she? No, she was just in a suit - a symbolic gesture aimed at ridiculing American moral tradition. But was she even fully nude? Ironically, her political jibes were rendered meaningless inasmuch as she contradicted them herself. Of course she couldn't go on national TV nude, that would be - GASP - against Canadian censorship regulations and bad for children. But since when does anybody expect anything valuable from Canada, such as commonsense, eh?

"This blog represents FIRE’s decisive step into the daily debate over academic freedom and individual liberty on campus. While our work has had national impact, recent events—such as the Ward Churchill case and the ongoing controversies at Columbia and Harvard —demonstrate the need for FIRE’s unique nonpartisan voice in the blogosphere."

Ridiculous? Yes. Stupid? Absolutely. Essentially the exact same thing I am trying to do? No, not really, but they frick'n STOLE MY NAME! Let's see when their first 'official blog post' was. Oh, I see when it was: February 8, 2005! That gave them one whole week to steal my blog name and use it as their own! ONE WHOLE WEEK TO STEAL MY BLOG NAME! I hope they know what this means. Obviously, it means nothing less than war.

You hear me, you thieves?! This means WAR! If you don't link me for a ton of hits I am so gonna do something rash and probably fail miserably! Yes, now it's sinking in. The guilt has hit you, hasn't it? How does it feel to know you stole my blog name? Do you feel creative? Clever? I know you sure don't look like you are either creative or clever, or honest non-thieves, for that matter! How do you sleep at night?! YOU STOLE MY BLOG NAME!

That's right, I'm calling you out! This is a travesty, a sham, and a mockery of intellectual property rights and ethics alike. You STOLE MY BLOG NAME! HOW DARE YOU?! Oh, how I hate you, FIRE! (Seriously, though, I love what you guys do over there and I hope you do well. in the near future. Keep up the good work.) I don't care if you're a bunch of lawyers and I'm just a quasi-intellectual high school conservative, you will fall! You should be ashamed of yourselves!

GIVE ME BACK MY BLOG NAME! (I'll change it if you link me. I mean this seriously. I really was here first and I would appreciate something in return of you taking the title of my blog.) YOU SHALL PERISH AT MY HAND, FIRE! THIEVES! LIARS! You better do what you need to do if you want to make this right. It's a crime against me; a crime against ethics; a crime against children; a crime against puppies; and a crime against humanity. Give me my blog name back! ::shakes fist::

Saturday, February 12, 2005

When Commonsense Is Abandoned

"BUENA VISTA, Pa. (AP) - A school bus driver encouraged students to jump around, throw things and misbehave on her moving bus so she could make an audition videotape for the reality television show "Survivor," police said. "

Sadly, I can believe that a person would do such a thing. The problem is, what's going on? When did people abandon commonsense and decency? Some people just don't understand how to behave or their responsibilities as adults in the presence of children; it's ridiculous.

What I don't understand is that people misbehave and perform the most blatantly stupid of deeds consistently and, instead of socity recognizing it as "bad behavior", it is deemed a "separate lifestyle". For instance, the liberal actors and actresses in Hollywood. Maybe some people never mature as one would in a normal developmental setting, but for some groups, the idiosyncrasy is revolting. We see it yet again in the anti-establishment crowd. With their proponence of nudism, sexual immorality, witchcraft, public fornication, bad language, and other improper don't-judge-me, pull-the-whool-rags-from-your-eyes forms of liberal behavior, it is clear that they damage today's youth.

Seriously, this woman is making a Survivor tape while she is driving a busload of children that aren't hers on the job? It is her personal responsibility to realize that their lives are in her hands and that her attempts to get on a reality TV show are for her spare time. It may seem as if I am overreacting, but eventually the idiocy of some people accumulates. Apparently, some people have never learned how to think and fail to do so often. Personal responsibility reigns true, as proven by this news article, and the liberal indoctrination of the past 40 years has tainted America's proud tradition of commonsense. We need to make strong-willed children, and the only way to achieve that is for strong-willed parents to actively do their job. With the vast array of enemies to parenting - postmodernism, relativism, social attitudes towards teenagers, and especially illiberalism - it may seem difficult, but it is precisely these difficulties we must overcome if we want to endure.

Large Fire in Madrid

"MADRID, Spain (AP) - A raging fire swept through the upper levels of a 32-story office building in downtown Madrid early Sunday, melting the structure like a candle and collapsing the top six floors in a shower of flaming debris."If you've seen this picture, you'll understand what I mean when I say that it is amazing. Luckily, nobody died, so I can safely admit how awesome I thought the picture was. Oh, wait, look what I found out how to do:

Say goodbye to the top six stories of the Windsor Building, a landmark of Spanish business since 1973. Apparently it's a pretty huge fire - awesome.

New Banner!

Dudes, I like totally made a banner for my site! Scroll down to like the way bottom and you'll see it. It totally owns! Hopefully I can post this on other sites and like totally accumulate some mega traffic, dudes. Anyway, it's totally at like the WAY BOTTOM under my footer.

The Answer to Our Prayers

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats elected Howard Dean chairman of their national party on Saturday, casting their lot with a skilled fund-raiser and organizer whose sometimes caustic, blunt comments can lead to controversy."Republican strategists and conservatives everywhere have fantasized of the beginning of an article similar to this for months, now. Yes, we have had our deepest desires met, and the sinking ship that is the Democratic Party just gained a monumental, gaping hole in its side. The hole can best be summarized by this - and I quote:

"YEEEEEEAAAAAUUUURRRRGGGHHHH!"

Okay, so that was a little cheap, but so is this victory, right? We didn't even have to work for it. The Democrats are willfully collapsing from the interior, and now they've all but admitted defeat. Pardon the ad hominem, but seriously, how overtly dense could you possibly be? This action comes from a party trying to remember its formerly "centrist" successes of the Clinton era - they've hired a quasi-socialist in favor of abortion on demand and a pacifistic terrorist sympathizer, one so blind to reality that he once implied that President Bush collaborated with the Saudis on 9/11. I find it hard to believe that, after an election highlighted by 'moral values voters' in Red states, there were such remarks as this, from Florida delegate Joyce Cusak:

"We are trying so hard to be like Republicans and we're not. I think Howard Dean says clearly that we are different. We are the party of ordinary citizens and not the elite, we are everyday working folk."I think it has been made pretty clear that she is wrong on all fronts. They're definitely not like Republicans (we'll benefit from that) and they most surely don't represent the average citizen. With abortion on demand and the multitude of assaults on Christianity and traditionalism and the philosophies thereof, they actually seem to be in direct opposition to what the 'average American' stands for. Then again, is this not the same party pushing for gay marriage? Is this not the same party of Peta, Planned Parenthood, NOW, ANSWER, GLAAD, and numerous other liberal groups? We have seen suicide today, folks - the self inflicted murder of the left's facial institution. And are they so bold as to believe even the words coming out of their own mouths? Let's see what Nancy Pelosi has to say:

"He has used the power of technology, the force of his personality and the depth of his ideals to bring new people into the party."

Don't you think his 'personality' is a little bit too forceful? How deep are his ideals - about as deep as a a child dwells in a mother's womb? Or as deep as the taxpayers' wallets? It seems they are deep enough to consistently be on the wrong side of history and the other side of public will.

And then - this is the best part - Dean speaks for himself:

"The way I hope to deal with that problem, is not to abandon our core principles, but talk about them in a different way," he said.

They have a word for that. It's called "spin", which is a form of "deceit", which is commonly linked to "lying". It goes on:

Democrats are not pro-abortion, but "we are the party in favor of allowing women to make up their own minds about their health care," Dean, a physician, said.

... And also the healthcare of their pre-born children. Wait, let me get this straight: Democrats aren't pro-abortion, they are just against the babies? I mean, as much as I love to see a woman have dangerous, promiscuous sex and not have to deal with the consequences of that choice, but instead delegate the responsibility to the baby inside of her, I just don't see the logic or moral virtue of this "core principle".

Democrats are not for gay marriage, but "we are the party that has always believed in equal rights under the law for all people," he said.

Democrats aren't for gay marriage?! Fascists! As a side note, I am for equal rights, too. That is why I am against "gay marriage" and believe that all people should be represented equally in the democratic process. I mean, I love disrespecting and disregarding the opinions of the majority while also demeaning one of the most sacred and longest enduring religious institutions known to mankind and all - don't get me wrong - but I was under the auspices that homosexuals could marry just as easily as heterosexuals could - just to someone of the opposite sex. Equality is a beautiful thing.

"We are the party of moral values."

Now you're just being silly.

"We only have one way to go, and that's up," Georgia delegate Lonnie Platt said.

Heh, that's not true. You've been up. You've had your chance at the top and you've flaunted the elitism you have been granted by votes past, and you have failed miserably in the truest sense of the word. You have very far to go down yet, and until you are at the bottom your agenda will be attacked as the beliefs of the majority - the realization of some of the most axiomatic truths - continue to succeed. Luckily, Dems, there is hope for you after you are rendered jobless. After the President reforms Social Security you can always just retire without debt on a PRA. How does that sound?

It sounds like the Battle Hymn of the Republic; or rather, the Republ-I-Can-s.

Salute to The Gipper

This past year Ronald Reagan passed away from this earthly world into the higher realm of the skies. Today is the celebration of the day of his birth. He would have been 94. We remember his presidency - arguably the best - and all of the glorious accomplishments thereof through posting the many quotes that defined his vision for the country he loved and his beloeved character. This is a man who revolutionized American politics and still inspires the hearts of the young to fight for a better day. He defeated the Soviet Union without firing a shot, limited the size of the monstrous government, led us into the longest period of economic growth in American history, and championed the values that define us. It was he who made us proud to be Americans once again. Without any further ado, quotes:

Today we did what we had to do. They counted on America to be passive. They counted wrong -- Ronald Reagan

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done -- Ronald Reagan

History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap. -- Ronald Reagan

The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or the next. It was the deep knowledge -- and pray to God we have not lost it -- that there is a profound moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest -- Ronald Reagan

Putting people first has always been America’s secret weapon. It’s the way we’ve kept the spirit of our revolutions alive—a spirit that drives us to dream and dare, and take great risks for a greater good -- Ronald Reagan

Regimes planted by bayonets do not take root -- Ronald Reagan

America is too great for small dreams -- Ronald Reagan

I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still. -- Ronald Reagan

And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was 8 years ago. But more than that: After 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home." -- Ronald Reagan

Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong -- Ronald Reagan

We are especially not going to tolerate these attacks from outlaw states run by the strangest collection of misfits, Looney Tunes and squalid criminals since the advent of the Third Reich -- Ronald Reagan

We will always remember. We will always be proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free. -- Ronald Reagan

They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right. Winston Churchill said that "the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits -- not animals." And he said, "There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty. -- Ronald Reagan

The ultimate determinate in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas - a trial of spiritual resolve; the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideas to which we are dedicated. -- Ronald Reagan

A leader, once convinced a particular course of action is the right one, must have the determination to stick with it and be undaunted when the going gets rough. -- Ronald Reagan

I have seen the rise and fall of Nazi tyranny, the subsequent cold war and the nuclear nightmare that for fifty years haunted the dreams of children everywhere. During that time my generation defeated totalitarianism. As a result, your world is poised for better tomorrows. What will you do on your journey? -- Ronald Reagan

[N]o arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women -- Ronald Reagan

The Democrats say that the United States has had its days in the sun, that our nation has passed its zenith. They expect you to tell your children that the American people no longer have the will to cope with their problems, that the future will be one of sacrifice and few opportunities. My fellow citizens, I utterly reject that view. -- Ronald Reagan

I hope that when you're my age you'll be able to say, as I have been able to say: we lived in freedom, we lived lives that were a statement, not an apology -- Ronald Reagan

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free. -- Ronald Reagan

This fellow they've nominated claims he's the new Thomas Jefferson. Well, let me tell you something. I knew Thomas Jefferson. He was a friend of mine. And governor, you're no Thomas Jefferson.
-- Ronald Reagan's Speech at the 1992 National Convention

This idea that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
-- Ronald Reagan's Speech at the 1964 National Convention: A Time for Choosing

Well I've said it before and I'll say it again -- America's best days are yet to come. Our proudest moments are yet to be. Our most glorious achievements are just ahead. America remains what Emerson called her 150 years ago, "the country of tomorrow." What a wonderful description and how true. And yet tomorrow might never have happened had we lacked the courage in the 1980's to chart a course of strength and honor.
-- Ronald Reagan's Speech at the 1992 National Convention

In closing, let me thank you, the American people, for giving me the great honor of allowing me to serve as your president. When the Lord calls me home, whenever that day may be, I will leave with the greatest love for this country of ours and eternal optimism for its future. I now begin the journey that will lead me into the sunset of my life. I know that for America there will always be a bright dawn ahead. -- Ronald Reagan

"The president, who campaigned for re-election on a pledge to cut the deficit in half by 2009, is targeting 150 government programs for either outright elimination or sharp cutbacks."

In that regard, he is much more like The Gipper than his father, in that he believes at the most fundamental level that the money people earn from hard labor and countless hours at the office should belong to them; that they know how best to spend it on themselves. Of course this is the standard neoconservative/Reaganite platform, but it's always pleasing to stand back and admire and revere a logical leader with a populist zeal. Yes, the liberals have been shamefully proved wrong yet again. The Vice President's confidence on the budget is definitely solid:

Vice President Dick Cheney on Sunday defended the plan against Democratic criticism that Bush had to seek steep cuts in scores of federal programs because he is unwilling to roll back first-term tax cuts that opponents contend primarily benefited the wealthy.

Let us course over the details of the new budget, shall we? Essentially:

Bush will propose spending $2.5 trillion in the budget year that begins Oct. 1. For the current year, he is estimating the budget deficit will reach a record $427 billion. That compares with last year's $412 billion deficit and is the third straight year the Bush administration will have set, in dollar terms, a deficit high.

The five-year projections in the budget will show the deficit declining to about $230 billion in 2009, when a new president takes office.

Those projections do not take into account some big-ticket items: the military costs incurred in Iraq and Afghanistan, the price of making Bush's first term tax cuts permanent, or the transition costs for his No. 1 domestic priority, overhauling Social Security.

President Bush is hardly the elitist tyrant that the leftist opposition would like you to believe he is. It's almost comical how blatantly incorrect an entire movement of people can be - a pathetic group of political naivete and a skewed perception of reality. Luckily, with every passing success of the Bush Administration, there is less support for failure in America, and an exponential amount of support for traditionalist neoconservatives (Howard Dean can help with that).

However, as with all political issues, there remains the inevitable: naysayers. Leading Democrats had such things to say as this:

... Bush's budget "talks about the next five years of reducing deficits, but what that hides is what happens after that five-year window. The cost of everything he advocates explodes."

Of course they are ignoring Bush's plan to strengthen Social Security and cut a vast multitude of unnecessary programs, not to mention cut taxes, but since when do the Democrats' analytical skills acknowledge logic - or reality, for that matter? Oh, and, lest we forget, the RINOs always have something to say about big news in Washington. Especially those particular RINOs who enjoy being slaves to the media. Yes, I am talking about John McCain:

"I'm glad the president is coming over with a very austere budget. I hope we in Congress will have the courage to support it."

Essentially, Bush's cuts are not ideal by any means, but his actions will definitely have a positive effect on our great nation's economic status and on the legacy of our President. He could have cut over 500 programs, but the mere 150 should suffice for the time being. I applaud his commonsense thus far. Maybe now if we could only get him to privatize healthcare...

Friday, February 04, 2005

Mocny on Gun Control

Here is an excellent piece from a cofounder of the Western Conservative Association and a good friend of mine, Anthony Mocny, on gun control. It is also featured in his school paper. Anyway, here it is:

Lock and Load for Liberty
By Anthony Mocny

Around 228 years ago, a few good men became tired of tyranny. Fed up with daily oppression, they began to look towards an idealistic future of freedom. Though it began for this great few at various hours of varying days, and though the clothes they wore were far from standard-issue imperial British uniforms, they had a tool that united them more than any coat of red could ever hope to compete with. They had an instrument of liberty, a device which breathed the first fire of liberty upon the soil of a great nation. The fire of freedom would burn in a new union, and they were its armed citizenry. They were armed with this great fire of freedom, hence that term: firearm.

Lock, load, and liberty were three “concepts” that once flowed together like clouds and the blue sky. Today, in a nation that would not have come into existence without the use of arms, gun control is something that is often at the forefront of the national political debate. Is it necessary? Is it effective? You decide, but I’ll present the following evidence suggesting that some respects of gun control hardly do much of any good, while cases in which firearm freedom is expanded lead to a safer, more secure, and freer nation.

A common argument in support of stricter gun control in the US is the notion that, because of these stricter regulations in foreign nations, these nations have a lower murder rate than the US. However, in nations where strict gun control has been implemented, though the murder rates have been statistically lower than the US, this cannot be attributed to gun control.(1) Nations such as the United Kingdom, Japan, etc., had such low rates by comparison prior to the implementation of their gun regulations. Their “better” gun restrictions made little difference in their overall homicide rates.

So then if gun control doesn’t have any real effect on murder rates, what effect does pro-gun policy have on crime? Every single time in American history that any governing body down to each individual county has ever implemented a pro-gun law, crime rates have declined.(2) One of our Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin, suggested once that “those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security.” As evidenced in More Guns, Less Crime by John R. Lott, Jr., in regard to firearms, where there is an increase in liberty there is a parallel increase in security itself. Men like Franklin and the Minutemen of the Revolution fought for both liberty and security, and their cause would have been a failure had it not been for liberal (that is to say, in the original meaning of the word) attitudes towards gun ownership in the colonies.

To cite a more recent example of excessive gun control being a failure, the Brady Bill, or Federal “Assault Weapons” Ban signed by President Clinton in 1994, and expired during the last few month’s of President Bush’s first term has had its effectiveness called into question on many occasions. Several research organizations have rejected the notion that the ban actually reduced crime, and have found that reports from state and local law enforcement agencies show that guns defined as "assault weapons" are used in only about 1% of violent crimes.(3) The “Assault Weapons” ban was essentially cosmetic in its nature. Overall, it prohibited installing two or more attachments (e.g., a sharply angled grip, adjustable stock, or threaded muzzle) on certain kinds of semi-automatics, and limited new ammunition magazines to 10 rounds capacity.(3) House Majority leader Tom Delay (R-TX) was quite right indeed when he labeled it a piece of “feel good legislation” in the fall of last year. The ban was ineffective, and even organizations that initially supported it found it to be so.(3) Furthermore, congressional and other governmental research organizations “have found no evidence that ‘gun control’ reduces crime.”(3) Whether it be banning certain external characteristics for an entire decade or the general action of tightened restrictions on firearm freedom, both have proven to be failed initiatives.

Stricter gun control does not work. Had there been a day when the colonists were told they “didn’t need” their firearms by their government, do you want to imagine a world in which they had willingly acquiesced to such demands? The same is true today. If stricter gun control (bans, tightened policies on ownership, etc.) statistically does not accomplish the goals it is supposed to achieve, what is the anti-gun crowd’s true objective? Why, when it does not reduce crime (theft, rape, murder, etc.) at all, should a nation founded by the existence of firearm freedom seek to ban the very tools with which our liberty was won from the very public it is supposed to defend? Our forefathers fought for freedom from an oppressive monarchy long ago. They locked and they loaded for liberty. Today we ought remember the legacy bestowed upon us from generations past, and respect the tools with which our freedom was attained. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” If it does not accomplish its objective, don’t implement it. Stricter gun control is unnecessary in America today, and it would be to forget that aforesaid legacy to pursue security at the price of our liberty.

Gorbachev Thinks People Respect His Opinion

Of all the former Communist dictators that were completely owned by Reagan, Gorbachev has to be the one to bad mouth the spreading of freedom. When the Iraqis were celebrating, their AK47s firing towards the sky, their fingers dyed in the purest of purple ink, ol' Mikhail had only this to say:

...the elections are "very far from what true elections are. And even though I am a supporter of elections and of the transfer of power to the people of Iraq, these elections were fake.”

Does anybody even pretend to believe that Mikhail Gorbachev knows what 'true elections' are? Anybody?

Day 2: Coverage on Condi

"LONDON (AP) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Friday a U.S. attack on Iran "is simply not on the agenda at this point," despite the United States' continued criticism of Iran's human rights record and suspected nuclear weapons ambitions."

Nothing is final yet, but it appears that the Bush Administration is going to hold off on military action until undeniably and absolutely necessary. Harsh and aggressive diplomacy is the path America has decided to take at this current juncture. After meeting with Tony Blair for a 90 minute breakfast discussion, Secretary Rice commented further on the Iranian menace that threatens us all:

"We believe particularly in regard to the nuclear issue that while no one ever asks the American president to take all his options, any of his options off the table, that there are plenty of diplomatic means at our disposal to get the Iranians to finally live up to their international obligations."

Of course, with America's popularity in Europe at its current state, we must seek a peaceful solution to this problem even when there is not one in sight. And we must not relent in our efforts to stop Iran through economic sanctions; however, if they don't yield their power soon enough, we might see the hawkish, practical side of Condi flare up, and the President's dream of liberty may manifest itself yet again in coup'd etat. Hopefully, we can avoid violence by having Iran agree to forfeit its authority and nuclear weapons programs to the Great Satan while concordantly aborting all support of terrorist organizations. Oh wait, that would never happen.

Expect Condi and Dubya to act on what we all know is inevitable, and expect Rummy to grow excited in anticipation of another liberation. Why do I say this? Look at what else Condi said:

"I don't think anybody thinks that the unelected mullahs who run that regime are a good thing for the Iranian people and for the region," and, "The Iranians know what they need to do. It's not the absence of anybody's involvement that is keeping the Iranians from knowing what they need to do."

That, with Bush's SOTU comments is tantamount to a very serious warning. We stand firm in our support for the Bush Administration and especially Condi on her trip to Europe - a moral wasteland of effeminate muckadoos. I wonder what Iran's response to the good ol' US of A could possibly be?

"America is like one of the big heads of a seven-headed dragon," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in Iran's capital. "The brains directing it are Zionist and non-Zionist capitalists who brought Bush to power to meet their own interests."

America Hates Whiny Celebrities...

... and so, this year, at the Superbowl, the NFL is choosing to use Sir Paul McCartney at the half time show, rather than the "wardrobe malfunctioning" Janet Jackson and that empty shell of a man she sang with, Justin Timberlake. Luckily, we will be able to watch the halftime show without worrying about any over-the-hill liberal artists who need CD sales exposing themselves and later lying about the act and the motives thereof. Moreover, kids won't be subject to the whiny ballads of effeminate fornicators and told that they're "cool". Win-win this year, not that I am gonna watch the Superbowl halftime show, anyway. Who does?

Thursday, February 03, 2005

School Shooting (Of Heroin)

Is this not disgusting? I thought that the 60s tarnished our country enough, but this is a little much. Where have all of the traditionalism and the values gone? Hopefully the judge locks her up, and her son, too.

Rice Takes Stand on Iran

Yes, it is finally here. After the successful liberation of Iraq and the elections thereafter, it is time to move forward in the War on Terror. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has already started throwing the diplomatic punches on just her first trip - causing some ripples in Europe, I'm sure. In light of the President's recent rhetoric, though, it only makes sense, right?

They are clearly making a case. For instance, when Bush said during his SOTU Address,"And to the Iranian people, I say tonight, as you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you," it was clearly the foundation of a major political decision. Now the tough talk continues, and this time from the hawk we have in Rice.

This is good news to say the least. Rice, an expert of foreign policy, is already getting things done; something we didn't have in Colin Powell. Hopefully her aggressive brand of diplomacy can lead to the liberation of a people. Nothing like a good ol' neoconservative coup d'etat of a terrorist Mullahtocracy with nuclear capabilities. Regardless of what happens, although it seems fairly predictable herein, I am proud that we have a real Secretary of State.

Seriously: "The unspoken message of the trip is the desire the turn a new page in the trans-Atlantic relationship, after years of tension and animosity following the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

Rice will be making stops in London, Berlin, Warsaw, Ankara, Rome, Brussels and Luxembourg. She will also travel to Israel and the Palestinian territories in the hopes of re-invigorating the derailed peace process.

During her visit, the secretary expects to meet both Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Those meetings will come on the eve of a summit between the Israeli and Palestinian leaders hosted by Egypt, the highest level meeting between the two sides since the start of the Palestinian intifada in the fall of 2000."

State of the Union

In a word: Awesome.

Is it just me, or was Bush's speech a complete home run? His talk on Social Security reform was compelling and syllogistic and he laid out the case quite eloquently. This, of course, was only eclipsed by his tough talk on Iran and the subsequent embrace between the mother of a fallen hero and an Iraqi woman who voted. The Republicans dyed their fingers blue and Bush received standing ovations in his hour-plus long address. I love politics; God Bless America.

Tuesday, February 01, 2005

Pope In Hospital

It appears that the 84 year old Pope John Paul II is in some serious trouble. There is already speculation of fatality, due to to reports that he is suffering from larynx spasms and inconsistent breathing which could possibly exacerbate his Parkinson's.

Being a Catholic myself (and this applies to all) I can only keep him in my prayers as he endures this struggle. It's not as if he is foreign to medical problems - he's tough; it's just that he is aging and is very sick and it is amazing that he has even stayed on St. Peter's throne this long at all.

Quotes

"There cannot be an absence of moral content in American foreign policy. Europeans giggle at this, but we are not European, we are American, and we have different principles."
-- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

"Not by force of arms are civilizations held together, but by subtle threads of moral and intellectual principle."
-- Russell Kirk

"There can be no fifty-fifty Americanism in this country. There is room here for only 100 per cent Americanism, only for those who are Americans and nothing else."
-- Theodore Roosevelt, Republican Convention; Saratoga